Ned, believe it or not, I enjoy debating with you. I must admit I find it frustrating at times because I think you entirely miss the point of my argument. My whole premise is the separation of church and state. Something that you seem to have difficulty comprehending. People are free to believe in any god or no god if they want, I do not dispute that. What I do dispute is that this right does not extend to imposing those beliefs into the government responsibility to represent all of its citizens. That is exactly what is occurring in the United States with these disgusting votes to amend constitutions. In the US, gay couples do not receive a damn bit of Federally legislated benefits that heteros receive, not one. I asked you several threads ago what you would do if your right to worship or your family's status was put up to popular vote and so far, you haven't answered that. Please do. If the "will of the people" said your relationship with your wife needed to be constitutionally banned, what would you do? Accept it? Would you find it humiliating? I find it insulting that religious objectors are so against being associated with gay people and then claim that you "love" us or have respect for your friends and family members. Marriage equality is an absolute necessity, granted Canada's system has recognized us as equal to hetero common law arrangements for a few years now. Our right to marry extends that in order to put us on an equal playing field with our hetero counterparts. As Paul Martin said, we cannot cherry pick which citizens are more worthy than others. One idiot, Jason Kenney, commented that we already had the right to marry, just someone of the opposite sex. Was he for real? Is he really that stupid? Is he aware of the thousands of destroyed lives of gay and lesbian people who have done just that? As a taxpayer, our families are entitled to use the word marriage just as you are. The government has determined that. Again, churches do not issue licences, government does. As a secularist, I do reject religion and would like to see less of it, but to destroy it? I personally believe that much of the thinking that comes from religion is extremely flawed but it would be a pretty hefty task to eliminate it and it is not my place to do that for you. You need to discover that yourself. When it comes to legal matters and matters that affect me and my family, I will not accept that a religious belief that deems us unworthy nor a belief system that is used to discriminate, as acceptable. Do secularists line up and prevent you from going to church? Of course not. Westboro Baptists? Now that's a whole other topic, but I must say they do follow their bibles.

wtw wrote: Westboro Baptists? Now that's a whole other topic, but I must say they do follow their bibles.

No they don't. The bible doesn't say anything about "hating fags" but rather hating what they are doing. It also says that we have ALL committed sin in the eyes of god, so using Westboro's logic, god hates all people - straight or gay. I think Westboro should look at the three fingers pointing back at themselves and less time at the finger pointed at everyone else.

Last edited by Glacier on Nov 29th, 2008, 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"In the Maritimes, politics is a disease, in Quebec a religion, in Ontario a business, on the Prairies a protest and in British Columbia - entertainment."~ Alan Fotheringham

Thanks wtw.. as stated before, I enjoy your debate because it is respectful... not something you get on these forums all the time.

I have the same frustration with you wtw because like many secularists, you equate a religious person voting their conscience the same as the church interfering with politics. They are not one in the same. The church doesn't have a vote, individuals do.

The government does represent all of it's citizens, and as a democracy in the US, the majority rules.

You want me to answer the question what if my rights were up for debate? They are right now just as I outlined in the previous post. It's no secret what the secularists want.

You state that you find much in religion flawed and that it is not your place to destroy it, but it is for us to discover that it needs to be destroyed? Are you serious. You even type it in your post. And you even seem to be a fairly level headed secularist.

Listen, here is the deal. If you want equal rights, why aren't you fighting for them? The right to call a union between two people a marriage isn't a right, it is changing a definition. Let's call it a civil union for those gays who need it to be defined, but also let's include those that depend on each other, like siblings that have never married but live together, an elderly parent and their child that is taking care of them etc etc and give rights to all of them. How is defining a relationship as a marriage giving you any more civil rights than you have now? It doesn't.... fight for the actual civil rights and include all people who could benefit from it and you have my full support.

You asked if secularists have lined up and stopped us from going to church... Yes they have. They have blocked access to the LDS temple in Oakland. What has been the LDS response? Well, one little old lady baked some cookies and took them out to the protesters. I suspect that the lobbyist are actually somewhat cowardly. They will attack the LDS people because they know we won't fight back, but the larger block of people that voted for prop 8 were the blacks and other religious people. I would love to see your brave lobbyists down in south central LA hurling some of the racial slurs that have been heard by members of that community at some of the proptests, or how about outside a muslim mosque.. they have a very fundamentalist views on what should happen to gay people. why aren't there protests going on there?

I deem noone unworthy. It is not my place to judge you or anyone else. But you wont' convince me that certain actions are not a sin when God has decreed otherwise. If you don't believe in God then you shouldn't have a problem with it.

ou want me to answer the question what if my rights were up for debate? They are right now just as I outlined in the previous post. It's no secret what the secularists want

Not debate Ned, popular vote. The will of the people to decide: (a) Your relationship is not worthy of legal recognition or rights such as taxation, pension inheritance, or hospital visitation (US ) and (b) you lose your right to worship. How would you react if secularists raised millions of dollars through a campaign of lies and petitioned for a vote for those two items to become enshrined in a constitution?

The right to call a union between two people a marriage isn't a right, it is changing a definition. Let's call it a civil union for those gays who need it to be defined, but also let's include those that depend on each other, like siblings that have never married but live together, an elderly parent and their child that is taking care of them etc etc and give rights to all of them

Lets call your union with your wife something else then. If you think it's justified to define my relationship on your terms, let me define yours as well. As well, the slippery slope argument, ie two siblings/.best friends/man-dog (Rick Santorum) is complete bull. Do you want me to compare you and your wife to these arrangements? I doubt that.

The government does represent all of it's citizens, and as a democracy in the US, the majority rules.

Using a vote to revoke civil rights and amend a constitution to attempt to marginalize gay and lesbian families. That's called tyranny of the majority.

Y

ou asked if secularists have lined up and stopped us from going to church... Yes they have. They have blocked access to the LDS temple in Oakland.

I wouldn't be so sure the protesters were all secularists. In fact, I believe Soulforce, an active group of LGBT persons of faith, have been protesting the Mormon campaign of lies (ie gay people destroying families) in regards to the despicable Prop 8.

See, now you are talking about two different things. Do you truly want "rights" or just to say that your relationship is a marriage? You don't think the other types of relationships deserve the same civil rights as the gay relationships? How inclusive of you.

I don't want any relationship to be defined as a marriage if it is not one. Should we be calling all of those other relationships marriages as well just because they are in a committed relationship? Where do stop defining marriage as something else?

I stated that all people of committed relationships should have equal rights. You said that is a bunch of bull. Can you explain why these rights are only applicable for gay couples but not other couples. Wow, now we see that you really don't care about equal rights for everyone at all. I just stated I would be happy to give civil rights to any of these people and I stand by that statement.

By the way wtw, you were the one who asked if anyone had stopped us from going to church services. Sorry I couldn't ask them all if they were secularists, but they were stopping people from attending. Not only that, they have chased several people out of jobs that deal with theatre and the likes, they are picketing a restaurant and intimidating patrons (when the owners weren't even involved... it was an employee) and we've all seen the infamous slapping the cross out of an old lady's hands and stomping on it.

Big Ned. While I appreciate your courtesy in bowing to the homosexual euphemism gay, it is inappropriate.

Same Sex Attraction Disorder (S.S.A.D.) predisposes the sufferer to a particular addiction which destabilizes the natural family, spreads new and virile diseases throughout the human family, and encourages predatory behavior toward women and children.

Many people are born with the SSAD disorder, just as many (myself included) are born with a predisposition to alcoholism or diabetes. The lifestyle is a choice in any of these cases. In my case, I don't suffer from alcohol because I have chosen to avoid the things that harm me. I choose to form friendships with people who do not make a habit of offering me alcohol, although it has been a common element in many events that I have attended. I just say no, and find other things that I enjoy and are more productive to joy for my loved ones and for society as a whole.

The SSAD lifestyle is unstable and dangerous. There is nothing gay about it. It's SSAD. Many homosexuals are good people, I like many of them, but they are not gay, they are SSAD people.

We harm children, especially, when we distort reality by even using the term "gay marriage." It's SSAD marriage.

That's how it looks from the rock I'm sitting on. And from a growing number of other rocks, too, it seems. My google search for same sex attraction disorder SSAD 3 or 4 years ago found about 5,000 results. A year or so later, about 12,000 results. Five minutes ago, 462,000 results in 0.26 seconds.

jacksevy wrote:Big Ned. While I appreciate your courtesy in bowing to the homosexual euphemism gay, it is inappropriate.

Same Sex Attraction Disorder (S.S.A.D.) predisposes the sufferer to a particular addiction which destabilizes the natural family, spreads new and virile diseases throughout the human family, and encourages predatory behavior toward women and children.

Many people are born with the SSAD disorder, just as many (myself included) are born with a predisposition to alcoholism or diabetes. The lifestyle is a choice in any of these cases. In my case, I don't suffer from alcohol because I have chosen to avoid the things that harm me. I choose to form friendships with people who do not make a habit of offering me alcohol, although it has been a common element in many events that I have attended. I just say no, and find other things that I enjoy and are more productive to joy for my loved ones and for society as a whole.

The SSAD lifestyle is unstable and dangerous. There is nothing gay about it. It's SSAD. Many homosexuals are good people, I like many of them, but they are not gay, they are SSAD people.

We harm children, especially, when we distort reality by even using the term "gay marriage." It's SSAD marriage.

That's how it looks from the rock I'm sitting on. And from a growing number of other rocks, too, it seems. My google search for same sex attraction disorder SSAD 3 or 4 years ago found about 5,000 results. A year or so later, about 12,000 results. Five minutes ago, 462,000 results in 0.26 seconds.

All this proves is that there are that many more ignorant people out there. Homosexuality is not a disorder, a disease or a lifestyle choice. Only fundamentalist nutbars think this because their minister or pastor told them so. Try thinking for yourself and practicing what Jesus taught you about loving your brothers and sisters and stop being judgmental.

Trying to get spiritual nourishment from a two thousand year old book is like trying to suck milk from the breast of a woman who has been dead that long.

cliffy1 wrote:Try thinking for yourself and practicing what Jesus taught you about loving your brothers and sisters and stop being judgmental.

Jesus of the Bible Jesus? Jesus lived by the commandments given to Moses. any other questions?

I am not weighing in on this subject but only commenting about following Jesus example. I don't think thats a good point to try, if you're promoting something The Bible does speak against. Jesus did follow the law too. So if you were to follow Jesus, you would also be against what he was against, right? He did love everyone, I agree but he loved them enough to teach them.

Hmmm wrote:Jesus of the Bible Jesus? Jesus lived by the commandments given to Moses. any other questions?

I am not weighing in on this subject but only commenting about following Jesus example. I don't think thats a good point to try, if you're promoting something The Bible does speak against. Jesus did follow the law too. So if you were to follow Jesus, you would also be against what he was against, right? He did love everyone, I agree but he loved them enough to teach them.

Yes Jesus was a rabbi but he was also a radical rabbi who taught a new covenant with god. Not sure if you noticed, but the god featured in the OT seems to have undergone anger management by the time Jesus started teaching. Have you ever read the red line bible where what Jesus said is in red? All the other doom and gloom in the NT was put there by Paul, who I think screwed up big time.

Trying to get spiritual nourishment from a two thousand year old book is like trying to suck milk from the breast of a woman who has been dead that long.

Hmmm wrote: Jesus of the Bible Jesus? Jesus lived by the commandments given to Moses. any other questions?

Which of the Ten Commandments says anything about homosexuality being wrong?Must have missed that Sunday School brainwashing session....then again, attended the United Church, so maybe they cut that part out of all of their bibles.

janalta wrote:Which of the Ten Commandments says anything about homosexuality being wrong?Must have missed that Sunday School brainwashing session....then again, attended the United Church, so maybe they cut that part out of all of their bibles.

The law of Moses. Look it up. of course your church didn't teach you about it. The law is over 600 laws.

Hmmm wrote: The law of Moses. Look it up. of course your church didn't teach you about it. The law is over 600 laws.

I thought we were talking about Christianity and the bible, not the TorahThe first "law' is to follow the Ten Commandments...none of which mentions homosexuality. Past that, it would seem that Christians simply chose which of the remaining laws they would abide by and which they would leave to the Hebrews.Today there are actually only 194 negative laws, 77 positive laws which still apply from the original 613...and 26 of those apply only to the peoples who reside in the land of Israel.Religion's views on homosexuality should have been left far behind with the rest of the 'laws' that are too antiquated to apply in today's world.